Rate this!
Anonymous
It is sad that IoD has adopted such a defensive stance to the Work-Life Balance advocates. Both probably represent end points of which the reality is somewhere in between. In organisations where pressures to achieve targets are high and so create the environment/culture that drives individuals to achieve and in all probablity, to routinely work long hours, it is the management of those individuals that is failing. There is not much wrong with a thriving, active business but if there are individuals who are not equipped to manage their work-life balance effectively and are driven by an over-riding loyalty to the company they work for, exhaustion and unhappiness culminating in workplace stress can result. Senior managenent need to manage - recognise and deal with such circumstances, understand what is reasonable for people to do, and not refuse to believe that problems exist as is seemingly the view of the IoD.
Some joint efforts might be more illuminating. How about working together on tbis one?
Rate this!
Anonymous
Having moved around in the past couple of years I have seen several facets of this. I find it is often required of senior staff that they work very long hours. Once you have achieved a workload, it is natural for your manager to expect this the next time. Managers are not always aware of the long hours worked by their staff, but simply notice that the job got done. Overloading people is very easy to do where staff are keen to progress, and responsible managers should still take the time to ensure that there is a reasonable work-life balance for employees. There is a tendance for hourly paid staff to "down tools" at the end of a shift, whilst this is often severely frowned upon for salaried employees. The average working hours are surely kept down by the fact that so many people work on an hourly paid basis. Perhaps this disguises the fact that there is a tendancy for very long hours in some areas.
Rate this!
Anonymous
A typically reactionary stance from the IOD. 'Apples are bad for you' claims latest report by chocolate manufacturers association.
Rate this!
Anonymous
It is unfortunate but expected that the IOD would take such a stance the sugestion that employees work long hours voluntarily is rubish they do so because those who don't are discriminated against when it cones to promotion or because they are paid so poorly that they have to to earn a decent living wage.
Very often staff are on salery's so the number of hours worked does not show up, but if the job
doesn't get done then they will know how displeased their boss is so that next time it will be done.
The suggestion that job duration has changed only slightly during the past 20 years may be true how ever it would be more relervent to look back over 30 years before the boom and bust 80's and also to look at the reasonsfor job change which have changed radicaly during that time.
Ruth (Fat Cat) Lea wants to come down from her ivory tower and try living in the real world.
Rate this!
Anonymous
After reading comments by Chris, Michael, Carolyn and Michele I totally agree with the lack of understanding that many managers have with regards to the "work-life balance". As a degree student having worked very hard to excel in the hospitality industry I am in discust at the level of hire-fire tactics and use of employees to achieve financial and personal goals of their business. I have experienced long-hours (salaried) and admit that it is the will to succeed and perform combined with loyalty for the company that drove me to do this. It impared my health in the fact that I found very little time to take breaks, often not even meeting legal requirement. My social life was non-existent. Whilst these extra hours were untaken voluntarily with a guide of 50-55 hours being offered by the employer, greater acceptance and understanding of the causes of long hours as highlighted by chris would be far more benefitial to company directors and managers of today. Why not accept we have a problem and attempt to offer a supportive role to managers in a bid to change the reality of the "work-life balance" otherwise hidden by your statistics.
Rate this!
Anonymous
I have to agree that, in some areas of industry and commerce, many Managers and Directors are not at all interested in the "Work-life balance" of their employees. Personally, I previously worked for a Private practice, worked long hours (frequently 50-55 hour weeks) on a fixed salary. I was even slated for not producing enough. I have now changed jobs where Flexi-time is available, and the managerial attitude is more aware of staff's needs to achieve a "balance". What many managers fail to recognise is that, for all the IT and high-tech equipment they introduce, they are nothing without human resource. If staff are having to frequently do 50-55hour weeks, it is not necessarily their fault. It is a staff resourcing issue, which can only be predicted and managed by: The Management. But let's face it, if you can get more work done by the same number of staff, it means a greater profit. Invariably lining the pockets of Directors and Managers with bonuses.
0 (0)
